[eimrine]

> I said the dollar amount isn't meaningful. Because the original claim was that "crypto, much less crypto from Russians, hasn't been a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine."

Your saying isn't reasonable because you are talking about tangential things to cryptocurrency. Ability to donate from/to some dissidents despite of crazy thugs is meaningful. Amount of donated funds by Ukrainian anti-Russian adventure is not.

> It means crypto is being used to send U.S. dollars. The Ukraine example is not a case study for crypto delivering value add at scale.

It is as reasonable as to say that USD is being used to send Bitcoins. Why not, aren't you able to buy Bitcoins with USD?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Ability to donate from/to some dissidents despite of crazy thugs is meaningful

Sure. Still isn't "a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine."

> as reasonable as to say that USD is being used to send Bitcoins. Why not, aren't you able to buy Bitcoins with USD?

No, it absolutely isn't. The U.S. Treasury isn't holding a pot of Bitcoins to back its value. A stablecoin holds dollars or dollar-denominated assets. This is particularly germane given the context of money laundering.

[eimrine]

> Still isn't "a meaningful contribution vector for Ukraine."

I don't say an opposite. An entire counter-claim about "donations to Ukraine was only 217M" is not an argument against Bitcoin, despite your efforts to present it so.

> The U.S. Treasury isn't holding a pot of Bitcoins to back its value.

LOL the crypto is one of established commodities perfectly fitting for inter-government trade.

> A stablecoin holds dollars or dollar-denominated assets. This is particularly germane given the context of money laundering.

I don't understand why it is important. A couple of thugs believes they can call "money laudering" anything they don't like, and what? Their presence is clearly diminishes because they have no ways to control cryptocurrencies.